# STATE OF CONNECTICUT

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

EXHIBIT E 

### HEARING REPORT Prepared Pursuant to Section 4-168(d) of the Connecticut General Statutes and Section 22a-3a-3(d)(5) of the Department of Environmental Protection Rules of Practice Regarding the Amendment ofSections 22a-174-20,22a-174-32(b)(3) and 22a-174-33(f)(6) of the

Regulations of Connecticut*State Agencies

Merrily A

. Gere Hearing Officer Date of Hearing: May 28, 2009 On March 27, 2009, the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) signed a notice of intent to amend sections 22a-174-20, 22a-174-32(b)(3) and 22a-174-33(f) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) . Pursuant to such notice, a public hearing was held on May 28, 2009, and the public comment period closed June 1, 2009. The amended regulations will be submitted to the U . S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for review and approval as a revision to the State Implementation Plan. I . Hearing Report Content As required by section 4-168(d) of the Connecticut General Statutes (CGS), this report describes the proposal ; the principal reasons insupport ofand in opposition to the proposal ; and summarizes and responds to all comments on the proposal . Afinal recommended version of the amended regulations, inclusive ofchanges recommended in response to comment, is also provided. Astatement in satisfaction of CGS section 22a-6(h) is located in Attachment 1 to this report . Il . Purpose and Summary of the Proposal The proposal serves three purposes: (1) adopt requirements consistent with the reasonably available control technology (RACT) level ofcontrol established in EPA's control techniques guidelines (CTGs) promulgated in 2006 and 2007; (2) on DEP's initiative, improve DEP's ability to regulate certain activities; and (3) eliminate redundant or conflicting requirements. EPAissued CTGs in 2006 for offset lithographic and letterpress printing, industrial cleaning solvents and flexible package printing [71 FR58745] and in 2007 for metal fiuniture coating, large appliance coating and paper, filmand foil coating [72 FR57215] . As Connecticut - currently has requirements controlling volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions frommetal furniture coating and paper coating, which are based on earlier CTGs and are included in (Printed on Recycled Paper) 79 Elm Street " Hartford, CT 06106-5127 www .ct .gov/dep An Equal Opportunity EmployerRCSAsection 22a-174-20, those requirements are proposed to be amended. Requirements for

letterpress, offset lithographic and flexible packageprinting; industrial cleaning solvents; and large appliance coating are proposed for adoption as new requirements within RCSAsection 22a-174-20. Minor revisions to RCSA section 22a-174-32are also proposed to adjust the interaction of RCSA section 22a-174-32 and RCSAsection 22a-174-20, given the new requirements of RC

SAsection 22a-174-20. . In association with revisions proposed in response to EPA's promulgation of the 2006/2007 CTGs, DEP used this opportunity to propose adoption of requirements specific to cleaning of spray application equipment, at the request ofsome regulated entities. Spray gun cleaning is one ofthe cleaning operations that would, absent DEP's adoption ofspecific requirements, be regulated underthe industrial cleaning solvents CTG . DEPalso proposes to delete the architectural coating requirements in RCSAsection 22a-174-20(g) given the adoption ofmore comprehensive requirements for such coatings in RCSA section 22a-174-41 ; and to propose the elimination of the reference to the federal Title Vapplication timelines for Acid Rain program sources fromRCSA section 22a-174-33(f) . The text ofthe proposal is located in Attachment 2to this report. III . Principal Considerations in Opposition to the Proposal No comments opposed moving theproposal forward to seek promulgation. Much of the comment requested revision of, and the addition ofexemptions to, new subsections (ii) and (jj) of RCSAsection 22a-174-20, concerning industrial solvent cleaning and spray gun cleaning. Adetailed discussion of the comments and responses is set out in the next sectionof this report . IV . Summary of Comments Written comments were received fromthe following persons: 1 . Anne Arnold, Manager Air Quality Planning Unit United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 1 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 Boston, MA 02114-2023 2 . Richard A

. Love Manager, Environmental Programs United Technologies Corporation United Technologies Building Hartford, CT 06101 Richard.lovena utc.com 3. David M

. Eherts Vice President, EHS and ChiefSafety Officer Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation 6900 Main Street Stratford, CT 06615-9129 chellerman(~a,sikors ky.com4

. Steven Burke Principal Environmental, Health and Safety Engineer United States Surgical 195 McDermott Road North Haven, CT 06473 Steven.burke(a~covidien.com 5. Christine H

. Porter Director, Regional Environmental Coordination Department Department of the Navy 1510Gilbert Street Norfolk, VA 23511-2737

,navy.mil Leal .boyd(& 6 . Eugene A

. Brackbill, P

.E. Principal Consulting Engineer Sci-Tech, Inc. 185 Silas Dean Highway Wethersfield, CT 06109 ebrackbill c(t),sci-techinc.com 7. Marci Y

. Kinter Vice President - Government &Business Information Specialty Graphic ImagingAssociation 10015 Main Street Fairfax, VA 22031 marcika sgia.org 8 . Mark L. Flannery Director of Environmental Affairs Printing Industries ofNew England 5 Crystal Pond Road Southborough, MA 01772-1758 Mflannery04@pine.org All comments submitted are summarized below with DEP's responses. Commenters are associated with the individual comments below by the number assigned above. When changes to the proposed text are indicated in response to comment, new text is in bold font and deleted text is in strikethrough font . Comments not specific to a single portion of the proposal are set out first, followed by comments specific to certain provisions in the proposal, organized by regulatory section. General comment l . Comment- Connecticut's proposal addresses all of the 2006 and 2007 CTGs, except for the flat wood paneling CTG . We understand that DEPis not aware of any sources that would be subject to the CTG

. If true, DEPshould submit a negative declaration to EPAfor this CTG including a summary ofhow DEPmade its determination. [I]Response: EPA's understanding is correct: DEP is not aware of any sources in the state

that meet the applicability of the flatwood paneling coating CTG . The same lack of awareness ofsources is true for automobile and light-duty truck assembly coating and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. DEPhas proposed for public hearing a reasonably available control technology (RACT) update State Implementation Plan revision that includes negative declarations for three of the CTGs: flatwood paneling coating, automobile and light-duty truck assembly coating ; and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. Following the public hearing on August 27, 2009, DEPwill submit that RACT update to EPA . 2 . Comment : The proposed requirements include some recordkeeping provisions. In addition, although not explicitly stated in the proposal, it appears that the coating and printing operations addressed in the proposal are also subject to the requirements ofsubsection (aa), recordkeeping and test methods, and subsection (bb), compliance methods, ofConnecticut's RCSA section 22a174-20 . DEPshould verify this point in their response to comments, since recordkeeping provisions stated in the proposal are not sufficient to make all of the proposed requirements enforceable. Furthermore, it should be noted, that some ofthe provisions included in subsection (aa) and (bb) state that they apply to subsections (m) through (s) ofRCSA section 22a- 174-20 . Therefore, those requirements would only apply to the metal furniture and paper, filmand foil coating operations addressed in the proposal, and not to the other categories included in the proposal (i .e., large appliance coating or printing operations) . [1J Response: RCSAsection 22a-174-20 currently includes CTG-responsive requirements in subsections (m) through (s) and (v) . The record keeping requirements for those subsections are set out in subsection (aa), the compliance methods in subsection (bb) and an alternative emissions reductions option in subsection (cc) . In adopting the 2006and 2007 CTGs for coating and printing operations, DEP amended existing subsections (p) and (q) and added new subsections (ff) through (jj) . DEP's proposal did not fully take into account how

subsections (aa) through (cc) apply to subsections (p), (q) and (ff) through (jj) . DEP appreciates the opportunity EPA's comment offers to correct this oversight. DEP intends that the requirements ofsubsections (aa) through (cc) shall not apply to new subsections (ff) through (jj) . As subsections (aa) through (cc) do not reference subsections (ff) through (jj) and as subsections (ff) through (jj) are drafted to stand independent ofsubsections (aa) through (cc), no revision is necessary to accomplish this result. For revised subsections (p) and (q), DEP intends that subsection (aa) shall continue to apply, except for subsection (aa)(10), which establishes a two-year record retention minimum

. Since subsection (aa)(1) through (9) apply, the record keeping requirements in proposed subsections (p)(7)(B) through (D) and (q)(7)(B) and (C) should be deleted. DEPfurther intends that subsection (bb) shall not apply to subsections (p) and (q) ; DEP will need to add language to subsections (p) and (q) to achieve this result . DEPalso intends that the alternative emission reduction option provided in subsection (cc) shall continue to be available to owners and operators operating under subsections (p) and (q) . No change to the proposal is required to accomplish this result, although DEPshould add language to allow

those operations now

operating pursuant to an order issued undersubsection (cc)(2) or a permit issued under subsection (cc)(3) to continue to operate

pursuant to such order or permit . So that subsections (p) and (q) are consistent with the preceding description, DEPshould make the following revisions to subsections (p)(3), (p)(5), (p)(7), (q)(3), (q)(5) and (q)(7) and add new

subsections (p)(8) and (q)(8) . In addition to makingthese changes, for administrative clarity, current subsection (q)(4) should be deleted and replaced entirely with new

subsection (q)(3) . Subsection Exemptions and exceptions. The requirements ofthis subsection shall not apply to the following coatin~s or lubricant: Stencil coating, M So ety-indicating_

coating, (ER) Solid-filmlubricant, (Div) Electric-insulating and thermal-conducting coating, (E-v) Touch-up and repair coating, or Evi Coating applied with a hand-held aerosol can ; . An owner or operator of-a metal furniture coating unit operating in accordance with subdivision (5) of this subsection is exempt fromany obligation to comply with subsection (bb) of this section.

by the manufacturer, unless the owner or operator uses one ofthe followin methods to limit emissions ofVOCs: Compliance options. Except as provided in subdivision (3) of this subsection, no owner or operator ofa metal furniture coating unit shall apply any coating, inclusive of any VOC-containing materials added to the original coating supplied (A,) Use only coatings with an as-applied VOCcontent no greater than the level specified in Table 20(-p)-l, according to coating category and drying method. The VOCcontent limits ofTable 20(p)-1 apply to the volume of coating as-applied, less water and less exempt VOC ; Table 2003)4

bso, .*:,. ., (.,,.) fthis so, .+: ., " ; .,* >>, Install, operate and maintain

- --- according to the manufacturer's recommendations an emissions controlsystemthat reduces uncontrolled VOCemissions to the atmosphere from a coating unit by an overall control efficiency ofat least 90 % ;.or ************************************* Records. An owner or operator shall maintain records of the information necessary for the commissioner to determine compliance with the applicable requirements of this subsection, as s:. All records shall be: iA Made available to the commissioner to inspect and copy upon request; and f jB Maintained for five years fromthe date such record is created ; and As described in subsection (aa)(1) through (9) of this section.



### the fellow*

, of an, ea*:ne or eleanine solvent used

An owner or operator of a metal furniture coating unit operating under a valid order issued pursuant to subsection (cc)(2) of this section or a valid permit issued pursuant to subsection (cc)(3) of this section shall operate as required in such order or permit, regardless of the requirements of this subsection. Subsection (g) [(4) The provisions ofthis subsection do not apply to any coating line with a continuous webthat has both paper coating and printing stations and that is subject to the requirements ofsection 22a-174-20(v) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies.] Exemptions and exceptions. The provisions ofthis subsection shall not apply to the following activities:LAi ) Coating performed on an and printing stations and that is conducted pursuant to subsection (v) ofthis section, aii The application of sizing or water-based clays in association with the use ofa papermaking machine, or Eiii The application of inks coatings or adhesives in association with flexible packageprinting conducted pursuant to subsection (f) of this section or offset lithographic or letterpress printing conducted pursuant to subsection (gg) ofthis section. B~ An owner or operator of a paper, filmand foil coating operation operating in compliance with subdivisions (4) and (5) of this subsection is exempt fromany obligation to comply with subsection (bb) .of this section

. Additional requirements. The owner and operator of any paper, filmand foil coating line with a potential to emit greater than 25 tons per year, prior to the use of controls, shall use one of the following methods to control emissions ofVOCs: (A,) Use only coatings that result in VOCemissions no greater than the applicable emission limit ofsubparagrraph(A)(i) or (A)(ii) of this subdivision calculated either per coating or per coating line, as provided in subpara aph A)(iii) ofthis subdivision. this , .+; ~r

ii For all coatings except pressure sensitive tape and label coatings, use only coatings that result in VOCemissions no greaterthan 0 .40 kilograms ofVOCper kilogramofcoating solids applied, Use only pressure sensitive tape and label coatings that result in VOCemissions no greaterthan 0 .20kg VOC/kg ofcoating solids applied, and The VOCemissions limits of subparagraphs (A)(i) and (A)(ii) of this subdivision maybe met either if every coating applied individually meets the pplicable emission limit or if the daily weighted average ofthe VOCcontent ofevery coating used on a single coating line meets the applicable emission limit; Install, operate andmaintain according to the manufacturer's recommendations an emissions control_systemthat reduces uncontrolled VOCemissions to the atmosphere froma coating line by an overall control efficiency ofat least 90% ; or ************************************* Q Records. An owner or operator shall maintain records of the information necessary for the commissioner to determine compliance with the applicable requirements ofthis subsection as follows.- . All records shall be: OA ) Made available to the commissioner to inspect and cony upon request; and f jB Maintained for five years from the date such record is created ; and As described in subsection (aa)(1) throm h (9) of this section

.

0 * ^* « o c ~ uue 

### the fellewiaqF- "`a 

### quanti 

### ty "f "" r .,at : * " . .1°n" "' solvent u

### sed

c . .,l*ro .,.4. . , 04 An owner or operator of a paper, filmand foil coating line operating under a valid order issued pursuant to subsection (cc)(2) of this section or a valid permit issued pursuant to subsection (cc)(3) of this section shall operate as required in such order or permit, regardless of the requirements of this subsection. As stated above, DEPdoes not intend that subsections (aa) through (cc) apply to new subsections (ff) through (jj) . However, EPA has indicated that the record keeping requirements proposed in subsections (fl) through (jj) are not acceptable to support enforcement ofthe proposed control requirements. EPA indicated verbally that the record keeping requirements ofsubsection (aa) are preferable to those proposed in subsections (ff) through (jj) and that EPAfinds the term"may" particularly troublesome, as it appears to make the existence, rather than the form, of records discretionary. DEPshould revise the record keeping requirements ofsubsections (ff) through (jj) to make the requirement to maintain records clearly mandatory and to specify the required frequency and quality of records. DEPshould also specify record keeping requirements for sources below

the applicability threshold for each regulated activity so that DEP might verify the lack ofapplicability of the control requirements . DEPdoes not believethat maintenance of such records is burdensome, since facilities need to track the use of

coatings, inks or other similar materials for inventory and quality control purposes. In each ofsubsections (ff) through (jj), the subdivision addressing records should be replaced in the format provided through the example ofsubsection (ff)(5), as follows: (5) Records. (A) An owner or operator of any flexible package printing press shall maintain records of the information necessary for the commissioner to determine compliance with the applicable requirements of this subsection. All such records shall be: (i) Made available to the commissioner to inspect and copy upon request, and (ii) Maintained for five years fromthe date such record is created. (B) An owner or operator of a flexible package printing press that meets or exceeds the applicability threshold ofsubdivision (2) of this subsection shall maintain daily records ofall inks, coatings, adhesives or cleaning solvents used, as follows: (i) Name and description ofeach ink, coating, adhesive or cleaning solvent, (ii) VOCcontent of each ink, coating, adhesive or cleaning solvent, as-applied, and the associated calculations. As-applied VOC content shall be determined using an EPAreference method, a California Air Resources Board reference method or other method approved by the commissioner, (iii) VOCcontent ofeach ink, coating, adhesive or cleaning solvent, as-supplied, (iv) The amount ofeach ink, coating, adhesive or cleaning solvent, (v) AMaterial Safety Data Sheet for each ink, coating, adhesive or cleaning solvent, (vi) Documentation ofcontrol device efficiency and capture efficiency, if applicable, using an applicable EPA reference method or alternate method as approved by the commissioner, and (vii) Date and type of maintenance performed on air pollution control equipment, if applicable.

### 10 (C) The owner or operator of any flexible package printing press for which the 12-month rolling aggregate of materials purchased for the printing operation is below the applicability threshold of this subsection shall maintain material purchase records to verify that the applicability threshold is not exceeded. The same format shall be used, with appropriate adjustments forthe name of the regulated activity and the types ofVOC-containing material, as a replacement for proposed subsections (gg)(7), (hh)(7), (ii)(6) and (jj)(6), except that the requirements of sample subparagraph (C) are not applicable to subsection (jj) . Subsections (ii)(6) and (jj)(6) should also include arequirement to maintain records to verify the applicability of certain exemptions and exceptions. 3 . Comment : The subdivision and subsection designations are not consistent throughout RCSA section 22a-174-20

. DEPshould take the opportunity provided by this proposal to make the numbering consistent throughout . [6] Response: DEPshould not revise the proposal in response to this comment. The proposal does not include all of RCSA section 22a-174-20. While older subsections of RCSAsection 22a-174-20are not numbered and lettered precisely in the format recommended by the Legislative Commissioner's Office Manualfor Drafting Regulations, which sets the standard for formatting new language and for revising old language, the differences are not significant to the identification of locations within RCSAsection 22a-174-20 and so do not require DEP to open the entire section for revision. 4 . Comment : DEPshould consider adding a definition of "coating" to subsections (n), (o) and (q) or add a definition of "coating" to RCSAsection 22a-174-1 to make clear what is considered a coating in all contexts. [6] Response: DEPshould not revise the proposal in response to this comment. Of the subsections to which the commenter suggests adding a definition of "coating," only subsection (q) is included in the proposal ; subsection (q)(2)(C) includes a definition of "coating." As a general matter of regulatory interpretation, terms that are not defined should be assigned their ordinary meaning, and the commenter should assume that is how "coating" is used in subsections without a specific meaning ascribed. "Coating" is not a good candidate for addition to RC SAsection 22a-174-1, since, in that general context, the termwould likely have little meaning beyond its ordinary use. RCSA section 22a-174-20(f), Organic solvents 5 . Comment: RCSA section 22a-174-20(f) should be clarified to apply to coating operations. Subsection (f) originated in LA Rule 66, which was provided as guidance for the original round ofState Implementation Plans in 1972. The portion of that old rule reflected in subsection (f) was designed primarily for coating operations. [2] Response: As the commenter suggests, subsection (f) does regulate coating operations in the absence ofspecific requirements in other subsections of RCSA section 22a-174-20. However, regardless of its origins, subsection (f) has been applied to VOC-emitting activities other than coating. While DEP agrees that subsection (f) could be less11

ambiguous in the scope of its applicability, the subsection will likely continue to apply to a variety ofactivities. DEPshould consider revising the applicability ofsubsection (f) in a future rulemaking, as discussed further in the response to Comment 6 . 6 . Comment : Subdivision (9)(C) states that subsection (f) shall not apply to: "The use ofany organic material where the as-applied volatile content ofthe material consists only ofwater and organic solvent, and the organic solvent content does not exceed 20% by volume of the material ." This appears to mean that a material must contain both water and organic solvent to qualify for exemption

. Would a material be exempt if it contains less than 20% solvent but does not contain water? What ifwater is part of the volatile content ofthe organic material? Subtracting the water content would be consistent with the CTGVOCdefinition, i .e., lb VOC/gal, less water. The language might be more clearly stated as follows: " . . .the as-applied volatile content of the material consists of organic solvent or organic solvent and water, and the organic content does not exceed 20% byvolume ofthe material , less water." [6] Response: Regardless of intentions to the contrary, DEPagrees that the proposed language for RCSAsection 22a-174-20(f)(9)(C) is as obscure as the existing language, in part because the terms "organic material" and "organic solvent" are not defined. At this time, DEPshould proceed only withthe proposed revision to subparagraph (A) of subsection (f)(9) and retain the current language ofsubparagraph (C) . To address the ambiguity infused through subsection (f), DEPshould propose a complete revision ofsubsection (f) inthe future to reduce ambiguity and improve the air quality protection provided by subsection (f), given that the control requirements of the subsection are quite old. In anticipation ofa comprehensive reviewofsubsection (f), DEP should retain subsections (f)(2) and (f)(13), which were proposed for deletion, as well as subsection (f)(9)(C) . An additional consideration against the proposed removal ofsubsection (f)(2) is that such a deletion would leave emissions resulting fromthe use of a "highly photochemically reactive solvent" now

regulated under subsection (f)(2) with no limitation except as provided in subsection (f)(4), which has much higher discharge limits than subsection (f)(2) . Such a result is unacceptable. Since DEP is, at this time, retaining subsections (f)(2) and (f)(13), DEPshould also retain RCSA section 22a-174-20(h) and (i), rather than deleting subsections (h) and (i) as proposed. Subsection (f)(2) references subsection (i), and subsection (f)(13) uses terms defined in subsection (i) . If, at a future date, DEPrevises subsection (f) in toto, DEP should consider also eliminating subsections (h) and (i) . 7 . Comment: Subsection (f)(11) exempts "such materials which exhibit a boiling point higher than 220degrees F." Subsection (f)(11) should apply the boiling point exemption to the properties of the whole material and notthe properties of the material's constituents. [2]

### 12 Response: Subdivision (11) ofsubsection (f) is not within the scope ofthis proceeding, and so DEPshould not make any revisions in response to the comment. DEPshould consider this comment in any future effort to revise subsection (f) . RCSA section 22a-174-20(l), Metal cleaning 8 . Comment: Aphrase appears to be missing from subsection (0(1)(K)(ii), namely "that exposes such metal parts." The named gases are not being reworked. The subclause should be revised to read in a manner similarto subclause (iv), as follows: "In the research, development , manufacture, and rework that exposes such metal parts to ozone, nitrous oxide, . . . ." [6] Response: The comment misinterprets subsection (0(1)(K)(ii), as the subclause is referring to the manufacture of the named compounds. The phrase "research, development, manufacture and rework" was used to parallel the structure of subclauses (i) and (iii), but the comment shows that the phrase is confusing in subclause (ii) . The definition is stated more clearly ifsubclause (ii) only refers to manufacturing of the compounds. Research, development and rework were added to subclause (ii) in response to comment in a previous rulemaking, where the phrase is most relevant to precision parts and electronic parts, for which the cleanliness ofthe metal parts may be ofutmost importance. Accordingly, subclause (ii) ofthe definition of "special and extreme solvent metal cleaning" should be revised as follows: (K) "Special and extreme solvent metal cleaning" means the use ofa cold cleaning unit to clean metal parts where such metal parts are used: (i) In the research, development, manufacture and rework ofelectronic parts, assemblies, boxes, wiring harnesses, sensors and connectors used in aerospace service, (ii) In the - ° reh, developm ent, &+-w-' ' rmanufacturin~ ozone, nitrous oxide, fluorine, chlorine, bromine, halogenated compounds or oxygen in concentrations greater than [twenty-threepercent (23%)] 23% , (iii) In the research, development, manufacture and rework of high precision products for which contamination must be minimized in accordance with a customer or other specification, or (iv) In a manner that exposes such metal parts to ozone, nitrous oxide, fluorine, chlorine, bromine, halogenated compounds or oxygen in concentrations greater than [twenty-three percent (23%)] 23% . 9 . Comment: Subdivision (2)(C) includes an exception for 1,1,1 trichloroethane and trichlorotrifluoroethene, which are Group I ozone depleting substances that were banned from production and use after 1996, with a few "essential use" exemptions. Regardless, exempt VOC are being or may be used formetal cleaning and as additional volatile organic material may be exempt in the future, subdivision (2)(C) should be revised as follows: "Metal cleaning equipment which uses an exempt volatile organic compound as identified in 40 CFR51 .100(s)(1), as amended fromtime to time." [6]13

Response: DEPshould not expand the exemption provided in subsection (0(2)(C) to include all exempt VOCs. The use of exempt VOCs in metal cleaning would by definition be exempt from the VOCcontent limits ofsubsection (0 . Other provisions of subsection (0, such as work practices, should continue to apply. RCSAsection 22a-174-20(s)(2)(B), Miscellaneous metal parts and products 10. Comment: DEPshould incorporate the Aerospace CTGinto RCSAsection 22a-174-20 . The exemption for coating of the exterior surface ofassembled aircraft now included in RCSA section 22a-174-20(s)(2)(B)(vii) is not broad enough to address the coating activities performed at UTCfacilities. Often, coating characteristics are mandated by military and other Federal agency requirements and the mandated characteristics do not always allow for compliance with the requirements of RCSA section 22a-174-20(s) . [2] Response: DEPshould notmake any change in response to this comment at this time. The recommended adoption ofthe Aerospace CTGis outside the scope of this proceeding. DEPis aware that the aerospace industry is subject to a number of constraints, including safety and military specifications for aerospace parts and products. To date, DEPhas addressed the concerns of the aerospace industry within individual regulatory provisions and through permits and orders. Should DEPdetermine that a new approach is preferable, DEP may propose to take a different course in a future rulemaking. RCSA section 22a-174-20(ee), RACT for large sources 11 . Comment: How

will the deletion ofsubsection (ee) affect orders issued under the requirements of this subsection? Would they lack regulatory authority given the elimination of the underlying regulation? Also, if the subsection is deleted, internal references to the subsection should be deleted, e.g

., subsections (cc)(1), (cc)(2), (cc)(3), (dd)(1) and (ii)(3)(iii) . [6] Response: The deletion ofsubsection (ee) would not invalidate orders issued under that subsection, since the law in effect at the time the order is issued would govern the order. Ifsubsection (ee) is eliminated, should either DEPor the other party to such an order wish to renegotiate, anew order would need to be issued under different regulatory authority or anew

compliance approach would be pursued. The proposed deletion ofsubsection (ee) is intended as an administrative improvement rather than to achieve any air quality benefit. Any new source ofVOCemissions would either comply with an applicable subsection ofRCSA section 22a-174-20 or would complywith RCSAsection22a-174-32; no new orders will be issued under RCSA section 22a-174-20(ee) since the ability to issue such an order has a date restriction . Given that the proposed deletion has created concern in some members of the regulated community and given that there is no significant advantage to DEP to phase out all the existing orders issued under RCSA section 22a-174-20(ee), DEPshould retain subsection (ee) in the final recommendedversion of RCSA section 22a-174-20 . In retaining the subsection, DEPshould revise the references in subsection (ee)(1) to include the new subsections that are part ofthis proposal,just as is proposed in RCSA section 22a-174-32(b)(3) . As a result, subdivision (1) of subsection (ee) will appear as follows:14 (1) [subsections (a), (b) or (1) through (y), inclusive, ofsection 22a-174-20 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies;] any one of the following subsections of section 22a-174-20 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies: (a), (b), (l) through (y) or (ff) through (jj) ; Since DEPis retaining subsection (ee), there is no need to address the internal citations as recommended by the commenter. 12. Comment: DEPis proposing to delete RCSA section 22a-174-20(ee) . This regulation requires a VOC RACT determination for any site with potential VOCemissions greater than 100 tons per year. In 1990, Consent Order 8010was issued to Sikorsky's Stratford site to regulate its eight spray booths in operation at that time and used for coating helicopter and helicopter parts (and other now

obsolete equipment) . This order was issued as a source-specific VOCRACT determination for the paint booths, whichwere not subject to DEP's control technology guideline-based regulations. Subsequently, Sikorsky submitted anAlternative Emission Reduction Plan, as allowed by 22a-174-20(cc), because several ofthe coatings used could not meet the limits in Order 8010 . Several addendums and Consent Order 8246 have since been issued to Sikorsky, which allows emissions offsets to limit the VOCemissions frompainting at the Stratford site. With the deletion of RCSA section 22a-174-20(ee), Sikorsky does not have the assurance that it can continue legally to operate its Stratford paint booths. The consent order was originally issued under RCSAsection 22a-174-20(ee) . Sikorsky is very concerned about potentially ambiguous enforceability issues. If the regulation is deleted, what is the Order's regulatory authority? Can other conditions be imposed absent the referenced regulation? Sikorsky recommends that the regulations be amended to recognize its operation under a consent order originally issued under RCSAsection22a-174-20(ee) . Alternately, RCSAsection 22a-174- 20(s)(2)(B)(vii), which exempts the exterior surface of assembled aircraft, could be expanded to include all aerospace applications. Coating ofaerospace parts, both interior surfaces and preassembled aircraft and parts, is routinely performed at many Sikorsky and supporting facilities. In many applications, the coatings' extreme performance characteristics are mandated by military and other specifications. The extremeperformance characteristics required in such cases do not always allow for coatings that comply with the VOCpaint limits in RCSAsection 22a-174-20(s), CTG-based subsection for miscellaneous metal parts coating. [3] Response: DEP's retention ofsubsection (ee) as described in the response to Comment 11 addresses the concerns raised in the comment relatedto Order 8010. Concerning the recommended expansion of RCSA section 22a-174-20(s)(2)(B)(vii), DEPshould not so proceed at this time. See the response to Comment 10for more discussion ofthis topic. RCSA section 22a-174-20 13 . Comment: The applicability of subsection (gg) is based on actual daily emissions from offset lithographic or letterpress printing and related cleaning. The CTGalso allows for an applicability threshold of 3 tons per rolling 12-month period. DEPshould revise the applicability threshold fromthe daily actual VOCemissions to the use of purchase records or actual use records of raw materials that would be equivalent to the three tons per rolling 12-month threshold. VOCemissions from offset lithography and letterpress printing15

are generally fromthe following sources: cleanings solvents, fountain solution additives and solvent-based inks. To determine a conservative material use amount equivalent to the three tons per 12-month threshold, the following assumptions are reasonable: " Cleaning solvents are 100% VOCand have a product density of 7 pounds per gallon; " Fountain solution additives have the following VOCcontents and product densities: o Alcohol : 6.6 pounds per gallon, 100% VOC o Alcohol substitutes: 8.5 pounds per gallon, 90% VOC ; and " Solvent-based ink is 45% VOCwith a retention factor of20% and a density of nine pounds per gallon. Using these assumptions, the material use amount of 855 gallons perrolling 12-month of cleaning solvents, fountain solution and ink combined would be a conservative estimate equivalent to three tons per rolling 12-month period. The applicability should be written using either of the following thresholds: three tons ofVOCper rolling 12 month period, or 855 gallons ofcleaning solvents, fountain solution additives and heatset ink purchased or used per rolling 12- month period. [8] Response: DEPshould revise the proposal in response to this comment. Although DEP has prior to 2002 used the 15 pound per day actual emissions threshold for many ofthe CTG-basedrequirements in RCSAsection 22a-174-20, the use ofa longer averaging period for determining applicability is consistent with DEP's current approachto source permitting and makes for easier applicability determinations and record keeping . As indicated in the comment, an applicability threshold with a 12-month averaging period is acceptable to EPA

. In 2002, DEPrevised its new source review

permitting program

to focus individual source permitting processes on sources of air emissions with apotential to emit of any single pollutant greater than 15 tons per year (tpy) . As an alternative to obtaining an individual permit for certain equipment and operations, DEP adopted permit-by-rule requirements in RCSAsections 22a-174-3b and 22a-174-3c. The two permit-by-rule regulations set out requirements that, iffollowed, would limit actual emissions to levels below the 15 tpy permitting threshold. RCSA sections 22a-174-3b and 22a-174-3c also provide for ease in record keeping and compliance determinations. The applicability and compliance determinations in RCSA sections 22a-174-3b and 22a-174-3c are generally based on a 12-month rolling aggregate ofmaterials purchased or used, and the record keeping requirements are, in some instances, satisfiedwith usage records or purchase records. As the CTGrequirements are similarly designed to limit emissions from equipment and activities that may not be subject to individual permitting, similar applicability thresholds, based on a 12-month period, are appropriate. DEPaccepts the commenter's suggested applicability of 855 gallons ofcleaning solvents, fountain solution additives and heatset ink purchased per rolling 12-month period. In sum, DEPshould revise the applicability ofsubsection (gg)(2) to 855 gallons of cleaning solvents, fountain solution additives and solvent-based ink purchased in aggregate per rolling 12-month period.

### 16

In allowing for a longer averaging time to determine applicability, some facilities that would be subject to the requirements ofsubsection (gg) if applicability was determined on a daily basis will go unregulated. The number ofsuch facilities, which is likely small, is acceptable. As in source permitting, sources with a rare, high activity day that results in a singular or occasional breach of the applicability threshold should not be required to meet the VOCRACT requirements. The longer averagingperiod imposes the requirements on sources with emissions that consistently exceed a level where the cost of control is appropriate, allowing the smallest and typically less sophisticated operations to remain outside ofthe regulation. The longer applicability period also allows DEP to focus its enforcement and compliance-assistance resources on the regulation ofthe larger operations. Not including sources for a short-termspike in emissions is particularly important since EPAapplies a "once in, always in" policy for RACT sources. If a source's actual emissions ever exceed the RACT applicability threshold, then the source is permanently subject to RACT requirements until such time as operations covered by the RACT category are ceased. Subsection (gg)(2) should be revised to read as follows: (2) Applicability. The provisions ofthis subsection apply to the owner or operator of any offset lithographic or letterpress printing press or- presses who purchases for the printing operation at least 855gallons ofcleaning solvents, fountain solution additives and solvent-based inks in aggregate per any rolling 12- month period. Any owner or operator ofan offset lithographic or a letterpress printing press _r_

__..__ . .__~ _..

r^*;~-~ ,~,'~~ ; .. ~,_.,~ . this

~. ;o * *

. .~ _~~

. .~ '~ ' 

### shall : (A) Comply with therequirements ofthis subsection no later than January 1, 2010or, for a source that commences operation after January 1, 2010, the date on which the source commences operation; and (B) Remain subject to this subsection. er~tis~ie~: 14. Comment : Alcohol is not the only additive used in fountain solution in most offset lithographic printing facilities. The majority ofoffset lithographic printers will use a combination ofacid fountain solution concentrates, alcohol substitutes, non-piling concentrates and possibly alcohol . To better capture all the potential VOC-containing materials inthe fountain solutions, the following recommendation replaces existing "alcohol or alcohol substitute" weight percentage requirements : . . .maintain the as-applied VOCcontent of the fountain solution at or below x.x%by weight . Theweight percent proposed inthis section would remain the same but be based on as-applied VOCcontent instead of "alcohol" or "alcohol substitute" weight percentages. [8] Response: The compounds other than alcohols that are used in fountain solution typically have a lower volatility than alcohol, which is why alcohol is the focus for fountain solution restrictions. Restating the fountain solution restrictions ofsubsection (gg)(3) in terms of the restrictions on the VOCcontent rather than the concentration of17

alcohol is acceptable for fountain solutions that contain alcohol since alcohol is typically 100% VOC, whichwould make the VOCcontent and alcohol content limitations equivalent . For fountain solutions with no alcohol, the limitation should be onthe amount ofalcohol substitute, since alcohol substitute will typically have a VOCcontent less than 100%

. Subsection (gg)(3) should be revised, as follows: Fountain solutions. (A) The owner or operator ofa heatset weboffset lithographic printing press with a fountain solution reservoir ofat least one gallon in capacity shall : (i)

) (ii)

(iii) weight; Limit the as-applied VOCcontent of the fountain solution to 1 .6%

by weight or less,

, If the fountain solution is refrigerated to below 60°F, limit the as-applied VOCcontent of the fountain solution to 3%byweight or less, or Use fountain solution that contains no alcohol and limit the alcohol substitute content of the fountain solution to 5%byweight or less. The owner ofa sheet-fed offset lithographic printing press with a minimum

sheet size of greater than l 1x17 inches and a fountain solution reservoir greater than one gallon in capacity shall : (i) (ii)

(iii) weight, Limit the as-appliedVOCcontent of the fountain solution to 5%by weight or less, ; If the fountain solution is refrigerated to below 60°F, limit the asapplied VOCcontent of the fountain solution to 8.5%or less, or Use fountain solution that contains no alcohol and limit the alcohol substitute content of the fountain solution to 5%by weight or less. (C) The owner ofa coldset weboffset lithographic printing press with a fountain solution reservoir ofat least one gallon in capacity shall use a-5-OA a fountain solution that18 contains no alcohol ' and that has an alcohol substitute content of 5% by weight or less. 15 . Comment: DEPshould add anew subdivision (8) to subsection (gg) to include retention factors and capture efficiencies for materials used in offset lithographic printing. The CTG includes retention factors and capture efficiencies, and these have been included in a number of state rules based on the CTG . Recommended language for new subdivision (8) is as follows: (8) Retention factors and capture efficiencies. For the purposes ofdetermining VOC emissions from

offset lithographic printing operations, the following retention factors and capture efficiencies shall be used: (A) Aportion ofthe VOCcontained in inks and cleaning solution is retained in the printed webor in the shop towels used for cleaning. The following retention factors shall be used: (i) A20%

VOCretention factor shall be used for heatset inks printed on absorptive substrates, meaning 80% ofthe VOCin the ink is emitted during the printing process and is available for capture and control by an add-on pollution control device. (ii) A95%

VOCretention factor shall be used for sheet-fed andnon-heatset web inks printed on absorptive substrates, meaning 5% of the VOCin the ink is emitted during the printing process. (iii) A50%

VOCretention factor shall be used for cleaning solution VOCin shop towels for cleaning solutions with a VOCcompositevaporpressure ofno more than 10mmHg at 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit) if the contaminated shop towels are kept in closed containers, meaning 50% ofthe VOCused on the shop towels is emitted during the cleaning process. (B) Aportion of the VOCcontained in inks, fountain solutions and automatic blanket washes on heatset presses is captured in the press dryer for control by add-on pollution control devices. The following capture efficiencies are to be used: (i) 100%

VOCcarryover efficiency shall be used for inks. All the VOCin ink that is not retained is assumed to be volatilized in the press dryer. Capture efficiency testing for heatset dryers is not required if it is demonstrated that pressure in the dryer is negative relative to the surrounding press room and the airflow

is into the dryer. (ii) 70%

VOCcarryover efficiency shall be used for fountain solutions containing alcohol substitutes. (iii) 40%

VOCcarryover efficiency shall be used for automatic blanket wash solutions with a VOCcomposite vapor pressure ofno more than l OmmHg at 20°C (68° F) . [8]19 Response: DEPshould not add the retention factors and capture efficiencies to subsection (gg) . Given that the applicability is written in terms ofmaterials purchased, retention factors and capture efficiencies are only relevant to determining whether an operation exceeds the 25 tons ofVOCpotential emissions threshold ofsubdivision (4) . DEP did not specify procedures for determining emissions fromoffset lithographic printing operations to provide the owner of any such operationthe flexibility to calculate potential emissions in amanner that takes into accountthe characteristics of that operation. Aperson may use the default retention factors and capture efficiencies of the CTG, if appropriate to the operation. RCSAsection 22a-174-20(hh)(5)(C), Large appliance coatings 16. Comment : Subsection (hh)(5)(C) of the proposed large appliance coating rule allows a companyto seek an alternative means ofcompliance if approved by the Commissioner . Such alternatives however, must also be approved by EPA . Therefore, we recommend that Connecticut's proposed large appliance coating rule be revised to require those seeking alternatives to comply withthe more detailed requirements ofConnecticut's existing RCSA section 22a- 174-20(cc), as is done in Connecticut's proposed metal furniture and paper, filmand foil coating rules. [1] Response: The proposed large appliance coating requirements differ fromthe proposed requirements for metal furniture and paper, filmand foil coating in that the large appliance coating requirements are entirely new while the proposed metal furniture and paper, filmand foil coating requirements are up-to-date versions ofexisting requirements. As noted in the comment, subsections (aa), (bb) and (cc) of RCSA section 22a-174-20 contain requirements ofgeneral applicability (i .e., record keeping, compliance methods and alternative emissions reductions) to the source- or activityspecific requirements ofsubsections (m) through (s) and (v) . DEPdoes not intend to have the requirements of subsections (aa), (bb) and (cc) apply to the proposed new requirements ofRCSAsection 22a-174-20, and, hence, DEP did not refer to subsection (cc) in the alternative compliance requirements for large appliance coating operations. To address EPA's concern, DEPshould add a requirement for the Administrator to approve alternative compliance methods to subsection (hh)(5)(C) . While EPA recommends that the detailed requirements foralternative compliance requests should also be added to subsection (hh), DEPshould not include those requirements in the final proposal since the "other information''provision ofsubclause (iii) allows for information equivalent to that specified in subsection (cc) to be obtained, as necessary. Subsection (hh)(5)(C) should be revised as follows: (C) Withthe approval of the commissioner and theAdministrator, use an alternative means to achieve a level ofcontrol equivalent to that required in subparagraph (A) or (B) of this subdivision. An owner or operator shall submit a request to the commissioner and theAdministrator to use an alternativemeans ofcompliance, and suchrequest shall include: (i) Adescription of the method, (ii) Ademonstration of the level ofemissions control achieved, and20 (iii) Any other information requested by the commissioner or the Administrator. RCSA section 22a-174-20(ii), Industrial solvent cleaning 17 . Comment: The exemption for aerospace facilities in subsection (ii)(3)(A)(iv) appears to be included based on DEP's recognition of the multiple agency requirements that apply to aerospace facilities and the need to ensure that those requirements are not in conflict. DEP should categorically exempt a11 aerospace manufacturing and rework sources (major and minor) from subsection (ii), as all meet the same flight safety and governmental restrictions. In support ofthis exemption, the commenters note: " Solvents such as methyl ethyl ketone, acetone and isopropyl alcohol are used in aerospace manufacturing and repair facilities as required in specifications ofthe Federal Aviation Administration or the Department ofDefense. No alternatives that meet the VOCor vapor pressure limits are approved under the specifications. " The BayArea Air Quality Management District rules, which are referenced in the Industrial Cleaning Solvents CTG, support an exemption for all aerospace facilities, major and minor. As an alternative to the categorical exemption for aerospace facilities, DEPshould exempt aerospace facilities that use cleaning solvents "in accordance with 40 CFR63, subpart GG" to exempt sources whether or not they are major and are subject to the Aerospace NESHAP . Another commenter recommends the following language to achieve the same result -- that the exemption ofsubclause (iv) applies to aerospace facilities regardless offacility size: (iv) At any aerospace manufacturing and rework facility that is a major or minor source provided that cleaning solvent is used consistent with the requirements of and the exemption in 40 CFR63, subpart GG . [2, 3, 6] Response: The intended result of the language proposed in subsection (ii)(3)(A)(iv) is the exemption ofevery aerospace manufacturing and rework facility, regardless of whether the facility is a "major source" as defined in 40 CFR63.2, fromany obligation to comply with subsection (ii) . The exemption, as proposed, is intended to be contingent on the aerospace facility using cleaning solvents as required in 40CFR63, subpart GG, since those requirements adequately limit VOCemissions fromcleaning. The phrase "used in accordance with" means that an aerospace facility observes the housekeeping requirements, cleaning solvent composition or vapor pressure requirements and spray gun cleaning requirements set out in 40 CFR63.744, inclusive of the exemptions. For those facilities that are not subject to 40CFR63 subpart GG, compliance withthe record keeping and reporting obligations is not encompassed by the phrase "used in accordance with." As DEP's intention is consistent with the result requested by commenters and yet was not understood as such, the proposed language is not clear and should be replaced. Considering the replacement text recommended in comment and the intended result, subclause (iv) should be written as follows: (iv) At any aerospace manufacturing and rework21 facility, provided that cleaning solvent is used in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR63.744, inclusive ofexemptions, 18. Comment : As an alternative to the categorical exemption for aerospace facilities requested in Comment 17, the exemption requested in RCSAsection 22a-174-20(ii)(3)(A)(viii) should be broadened in two respects: " The exemption provided in RCSA section 22a-174-20(ii)(3)(A)(viii) should be broadened to include not only the use ofcleaning solvents as specified in standards or specifications issued by the United States Department of Defense but also specifications approved by the Department of Defense. [2, 3] " The exemption provided in RCSA section 22a-174-20(ii)(3)(A)(viii) should be broadened to include not only specifications of the Department of Defense but also the Federal Aviation Administration and other agencies or customers that provide specifications for the manufacture and repair offlight critical parts. For example, the FAAoften specifies the use of MEK, acetone and IPAto provide a necessary level ofcleanliness, and no acceptable substitutes are available that meet the 0 .42 lb/VOC/gal limit ofthe proposed regulation. Even if a suitable substitute were available, a lengthy demonstration of performance would need to be prepared for FAAapproval, a process that would take time beyond the January 1, 2010compliance date. [2, 3] Language that would broaden the exemption in subclause (viii) in both respects might read as follows: (viii) In cleaning, including surface preparation prior to coating, necessary to meet a standard or specification issued or approved by the United States Department of Defense, FAA, NASA, customer or other regulating entity. [2, 3] Response: Although the categorical exemption for aerospace facilities as recommended in Comment 17 granted, . DEPshould revise subclause (viii) to address the concerns raised in comment since subclause (viii) is applicable to facilities otherthan aerospace manufacturing, and such other facilities may have similar concerns. DEPshould revise subdivision (3)(A)(viii) as follows in the final recommended version of subsection (ii) : (viii) In cleaning, including surface preparation prior to coating, necessary to meet a standard or specificationof issued or approved by the United States Department of Defense, Federal Aviation Administration or other federal government entity. Any person claiming exemption pursuant to this subclause shall maintain records of the standard or specification, 19. Comment: DEPshould add anew exemptionto subsection (ii) to allow forthe use of noncompliant solvent in amounts greater than the 55-gallon exemption. The exemption could take the following form

: (A) The use ofa cleaning solvent that does not comply with subdivision (4)(A) ofthis subsection may be allowed upon approval by the Commissioner . (B) Any request for approval under this subdivision shall be made in writing to the Commissioner and shall include, at a minimum, the following information:22 (i) The scope of the activity, (ii) An assessment ofalternative materials and procedures, (iii) Quantification ofthe amount ofVOCthat would be emitted as aresult of such activity, and (iv) The dates on which the activity will occur. [6] Response: DEPshould add the suggested exemption to subsection (ii) . Although DEP is adding or broadening other exemptions in response to comment and narrowing the type ofactivities subject to subsection (ii), it is conceivable that an alternate approach to compliance may be necessary for a few, limited situations. The exemption should be added as new

subclause (xiv) ofsubdivision (3), as follows: (xiv) That exceeds the applicable limit ofsubdivision (4)(A) of this subsection, if approved by the commissioner and the Administrator. Any request for approval shall be made in writing to the commissioner and theAdministrator and shall include a description of the cleaning solvent and its VOCcontent, an explanation ofwhy the cleaning solvent is necessary, quantification of the amount of the VOC that will be emitted as a result of the use of the noncompliant cleaning solvent and the time period over which the noncompliant solventwill be used. 20 . Comment: The rule exemptsjanitorial cleaning, defined as "the cleaning of building or facility components including, but not limited to, floors, ceilings, walls, windows, doors, stairs, restrooms, furnishings and exterior surfaces ofoffice equipment." Janitorial cleaning excludes the cleaning ofwork areas where manufacturing or repair activity is performed. Avery strict interpretation could indicate that the regulation applies to the cleaning ofwork stations, even at otherwise exempted sites, such as those subjectto the Aerospace NESHAP. To distinguish between and distribute separate cleaning formulations for flight critical parts and work stations will prove to be an onerous and impractical, if not impossible, record keeping and training effort. This problemcould be solved by DEPcategorically exempting aerospace manufacturing and rework sources fromsubsection (ii), or the language should be changed to exempt work station cleaning at aerospace manufacturing and rework sources if the use of solvents is otherwise permitted for cleaning parts. [3] Response: The revision recommended in the response to Comment 17 addresses the concern raised, as the categorical exemption ofaerospace manufacturing and rework facilities will eliminate the need for operators ofsuch facilities to distinguish regulated and non-regulated activities. 21 . Comment: Solvent cleaning is broadly defined with specific exemptions provided in subsection (ii)(3) . Military facilities such as the Naval Submarine Base at Groton, Connecticut performmany functions in support of their primary mission, including maintenance of barracks, living spaces, equipment and vehicles; food preparation; operation ofrecreational facilities such as a gym, swimming pool, bowling alley, golf course and movie theater; and operation of a gas

### 23

station, medical and dental center and submarine school . As general solvent cleaning is performed within these various functions, and many ofthe products used are the same products otherwise regulated as consumer or institutional products under RCSAsection 22a-174-40, further clarification ofsubsection (ii) is necessary. DEPshould make specific changes to the proposal to address the multiple activities ofsome facilities, including the following: " "Solvent cleaning" as defined under subsection (ii)(1)(F) should be revised to clarify what types ofsolvent cleaning operations are covered. " Subsection (ii)(3) should include an exemption for solvent cleaners regulated under RCSAsection 22a-174-40. " Subsection (ii)(1)(C) should specify whether "liquid" cleaning solvent includes an aerosol cleaning solvent ofa solvent laden (pre-moistened) towelette. " Subsection (ii)(1)(D) should specify whether "janitorial cleaning" includes cleaning of furnishings and food service equipment. " Subsection (ii)(1)(F) should state whether cleaning ofpersonal protective equipment, such as respirators, would constitute "solvent cleaning." [5] Response: DEPagrees that the activities intended to be regulated under subsection (ii) are not clearly identified and appreciates the comments to help us so do. The CTGthat forms the basis ofsubsection (ii) is focused on industrial solvent cleaning, which is not differentiated fromother forms ofsolvent cleaning in subsection (ii) . Industrial solvent cleaning is the cleaning ofparts, products or equipment incorporated into or used exclusivelyin the manufacture or construction ofa finished product at a facility. The CTGidentifies nine categories of industrial solvent cleaning, including spray gun cleaning (to whichproposed subsection (jj) is devoted), spray booth cleaning, parts cleaning, manufacturing equipment cleaning, manufactured components cleaning, line cleaning, floor cleaning and tank cleaning. The activities that constitute industrial solvent cleaning do not include routine cleaning or maintenance of an establishment, activities which are defined as "janitorial," and the definitions in subsection (ii)(1) should be revised to make the distinction of the industrial and general cleaning clearer and to address the specific circumstances raised in the comment (i .e., the bulleted list) . The defined term"solvent cleaning" should be replaced with "industrial solvent cleaning," andthe definitions should be ordered alphabetically. Subsection (ii) should be labeled "industrial solvent cleaning" rather than "general solventcleaning" to distinguishthe subsection's purpose from janitorial or general cleaning. As the CTGis focused on manufacturing situations, facilities such as schools, universities, military bases and hospitals, would typically not be subject to the subsection unless a portion of the facility was devoted to manufacturing. For example, a technical school may operate a manufacturing shop, andthe shop would need to be cleaned in accordance with subsection (ii) absent an exemption . The rest ofthe school, including classrooms, locker rooms, offices and library, would not be subject to subsection (ii) . The exemptions should lead to a result that cleaning and cleaners used in an industrial application should only be subject to a single regulation. To a large extent, this result is achieved by the proposed exemptions. However, the comment identifies an important oversight in that no exemption is provided for cleaning with cleaners regulated by RCSA section 22a-174-40, and such an exemption should be added to subsection (ii)(3) . In addition, cleaning that is subject to any other subsection of RCSAsection 22a-174-20 should also be exempt from subsection (ii) . In adding a single subclause to address24

cleaningotherwise regulated in RCSAsection 22a-174-20, proposed subdivisions (3)(A)(vi) and (3)(A)(vii) should be deleted and the subclauses re-numbered, as appropriate. Accordingly, the final version ofsubsection (ii) should be revised as indicated below . (ii) Gener-al Industrial solvent cleaning. (1) Definitions. Forthe purpose ofthis subsection: (A) "Air pollution control equipment efficiency" means the ratio ofVOC emissions recovered or destroyed by the air pollution control equipment to the total VOCemissions that are introduced into the airpollution control equipment, expressed as a percentage; (B) "Capture efficiency" means the ratio ofVOCemissions delivered to the air pollution control equipment to the total VOCemissions resulting from the industrial solvent cleaning ~~~tie , expressed as apercentage; (C) "Cleaning solvent" means any VOC-containing liquid, including a liquid impregnated wipe or towelette, used in cleaning used to per¬ er~ (D) "Solvent- Industrial solvent cleaning" means the use ofcleaning solvent to remove uncured adhesives, uncured inks, uncured coatings or contaminants such as dirt, soil an-or grease fromparts, products, tools, machinery, equipment or work areas, where such parts, products, tools, machinery, equipment and work areas are incorporated into or used exclusively in manufacturing a product. "Industrial solvent cleaning" includes spray booth cleaning, cleaning of manufactured components, parts cleaning, cleaning of production equipment for maintenance or to prohibit cross-contamination, and cleaning of tanks, mixing pots, process vessels and lines. "Industrial solvent cleaning" does not include the cleaning of personal protection equipment, such as respirators. "Janitorial cleaning" means the general and maintenance cleaning of building or facility components including, but not limited to, floors, ceilings, walls, windows, doors, stairs, restrooms, furnishings, kitchens and exterior surfaces ofoffice equipment. "Janitorial cleaning" includes graffiti removal . "Janitorial cleaning" excludes the cleaning of parts, products or equipment, where such parts, products or equipment are incorporated into or used exclusively in manufacturing a product. "Janitorial cleaning" excludes the cleaning ofwork areas, such as laboratory benches, where manufacturing or repair activity is performed; (F) "Overall control efficiency" means the product ofthe capture efficiency andthe air pollution control equipment efficiency;

### 25 (3) Exemptions and exceptions. (A) The requirements of this subsection shall not apply to the use of cleaning solvent as follows: (i) Injanitorial cleaning, (ii) At an aerospace manufacturing and rework operation or a wood furniture coating operation in accordance with an order or a permit issued pursuant to sections 22a-174-32(e) and 22a-174-20(cc) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, (iii) To performgeneral solvent cleaning in accordance with an order issued pursuant to section22a-174-20(ee) ofthe Regulations of the Connecticut State Agencies, (iv) At an aerospace manufacturing and rework facility where cleaning solvent is used in accordance with 40 CFR63, (v) As surface preparation or cleanup solvent in accordance with section 22a-174-44 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies,

(vi) Where the cleaning solvent is regulated pursuant to section 22a-174-40 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, (vii) To performindustrial solvent cleaningwhere such cleaning or cleaning solvent is subject to one of the following subsections of this section: (f) through (y), (ff) through (hh), or (jj), (xii) Associated with pharmaceutical manufacturing, and (xiii) That exceeds the applicable limit ofsubdivision (4)(A) of this subsection where the quantity used does not exceed 55 gallons per any twelve-monthrolling aggregate. Any person claiming exemption pursuant to this subparagraph

### 26 subclause shall record and maintain monthly records sufficient to demonstrate compliance with this exemption, or In addition, the term"solvent cleaning" as proposed in subsection (ii) shall be replaced with "industrial solvent cleaning" in each instance it appears. 22 . Comment: Subsection (ii)(4) should include a conversion table or formula for comparison of MSDS vaporpressure units and reference temperatures to the regulatory limit and a formula for calculating as-applied vapor pressure for solvent-water mixtures. [5] Response: DEPshould not add a conversion table or formula as recommended in the comment. Information about the vapor pressure of any particular product is typically available in a MSDS or directly from themanufacturer . Should the units of measurement require conversion, there are a number ofconversion tables and calculators available on the internet. 23. Comment: Subsection (ii)(5)(E) requires cleaning to be conducted to "minimize associated VOCemissions." This mandate is ambiguous and should instead identify specific practices necessary to minimize emissions. [5] Response: The commenter is correct that subsection (ii)(5)(E) is ambiguous, and DEP should delete that phrase in the final version ofthe proposal, as follows: (5) Work practices. Each owner or operator shall use the following work practices: (A) New

and used cleaning solvent, including those mixed on the premises, shall be stored in anonabsorbent, non-leaking container. Such a container shall be kept closed at all times except when the container is being filled, emptied or is otherwise actively in use; (B) Spills and leaks ofcleaning solvent shall be minimized. Any leaked or spilled cleaning solvent shall be absorbed and removed immediately; (C) Absorbent applicators, such as cloth and paper, which are moistened with cleaning solvent, shall be stored in a closed, nonabsorbent, non-leaking container for disposal or recycling; and ) Cleaning solvent shall be conveyed from one location to another in a closed container or pipe. -,-7apA

The same ambiguous phrase should also be deleted in proposed subsections (p)(6)(E), (q)(6)(E), (ff)(3)(E), (gg)(6)(E), (hh)(6)(E) and OJ)(5)(E)~

### 27

24. Comment : DEPshould add an exemption for digital printing operations and presses in subsection (ii)(3) . EPA did not consider emerging industry sectors in developing the CTG . Indeed, EPAcollected data for the CTGin 1994 and only considered nine specific industry sectors. An exemption wouldbe consistentwith a recent action by California's Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which revised the District's graphic arts rule to exempt digital printing operations and presses from all VOCcontrol requirements, including those associated with cleaning solvents. [7, 8] Response: For the reasons stated in the comment, DEPshould add an exemption to subsection (ii)(3) to exclude digital printing operations fromthe VOCcontrol requirements ofsubsection (ii)(4) and the recordkeeping requirements of subsection (ii)(6) . Owners ofdigital printing operations should meet the work practices of subsection (ii)(5) . The new

exemption should be added as subparagraph (B) ofsubsection (ii)(3), as follows: (B) The requirements ofsubdivisions (4) and (6) of this subsection shall not apply to the use of cleaning solvent in a digital printing operation, where digital printing means a method of printing in which an electronic output device transfers variable data, in the formof an image, froma computer to a substrate. 25. Comment: The "once in always in" language of RCSAsection 22a-174-20(ii)(2)(B) does not encourage pollution prevention to reduce the use ofVOC-containing products. There is no similar requirement in the CTG, and the provision should be deleted. [7] Response: DEP agrees that the application ofa "once in, always in" policy for RACT sources does not encourage pollution prevention. However, EPA applies the once in, always in policy to RACT sources as it has historically done for major sources ofair toxics under CAAsection 112 . In essence, if a source was subject to RACT because its potential emissions exceeded a RACT threshold, but actual emissions did not, thenthe source could by permit or other enforceable mechanism prohibit its emissions from exceeding the actual emissions threshold in lieu of meeting RACT. However, if the source's actual emissions ever exceed the RACT applicability threshold, then the source is permanently subject to RACT until suchtime as the source ceases operations covered by the RACT category. 26. Comment: DEPshould include all the exemptions in BAAQMDrule 8-4-116, or at least the following three categories: stripping ofcured inks, coatings and adhesives; research and development laboratories; and performance or quality testing ofcoatings, inks or adhesives. [7] Response: DEPshould not add the exemptions recommended in the comment. The exemptions proposed in subdivisions (3)(A)(ix) and (x) already provide for a full exemption fromsubsection (ii) for industrial solvent cleaning associated with research and development and quality control or laboratory testing. The exemption specific to stripping ofcured inks, coatings and adhesives does not, absent any other information, seemwarranted given the range ofexemptions included in subsection (ii)(3), including

### 28

those forprinting operations otherwise regulated in RC SA section 22a-174-20 and for surface preparation conductedpursuant to RC SA section 22a-174-44. 27 . Comment: The 50gram VOCper liter limitation on solvents used for industrial cleaning activities should not be applied to all industrial sectors. EPArecognized that certain industries have unusual needs and allowed that states might tailor their rules to these specific scenarios. EPAalso did not use accurate data in developing the CTG . Although EPAonly identified 21 facilities in Connecticut that would be subject to the CTG, there are over 230screen printing facilities operating in Connecticut that will be subject to the solvent cleaning requirements. Most ofthese operations are small businesses with 15 or fewer employees. The screen printing industry has unique needs that are not compatible with the 50gram VOCper liter limitation. The screen printing industry uses solvents fortwo specific cleaning activities: screen reclamation and on-press cleaning. Screen reclamation is the process of removing the stencil fromthe mesh so that a new stencil can be applied. Solvents used for on-press cleaning must be able to clean the mesh openings during a production run. The ability to quickly wipe off the screen during production with minimal waste is both an economic necessity as well as an environmental issue. Recognizing these needs, other states including Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana and Illinois have set out individual VOCcontent limits for cleaning of ink application equipment, rather than regulating themunder general solvent cleaning requirements. [7, 8] Alimit of 4.2 pounds ofVOCper gallon should be added to the regulation forthe cleaning of ink application equipment for screen printing operations. In addition, DEPshould retain the alternative compliance method of using the compositevapor pressure of25 mmHg for screen printing operations. [7, 8] Response: DEPshould add a VOCcontent limit specific to solvent cleaning at screen printing operations. Anumber ofstates with similar rules regulating industrial solvent cleaning specify cleaning solvent standards for screen printing operations; in all cases the VOCcontent limits are higher than the 0 .42 pound ofVOCper gallon (50 g/L) that would apply to screen printing operations underproposed subsection (ii) .1 The final version ofsubsection (ii) should be revised by adding new subparagraph (C) to subdivision (3), as follows: . (C) The limitations ofsubdivision (4)(A) of this subsection shall not apply to cleaning solvent used to clean screen printing equipment, if the cleaning solvent used has an as-applied VOCcontent that does not exceed 500grams per liter (4

.2 pounds per gallon) . DEPshould also add a definition of "screen printing" to subsection (ii)(1) inthe appropriate location alphabetically, as follows: "Screen printing" means a method of creating an image by pressing ink through a screen or fabric to which a stencil has been applied. Thestencil openings determine the form and dimensions of the image; and

The commenter also recommends that DEPmaintain a 25 mmHgvapor pressure limit for screen printing, but no such vapor pressure limit is in the proposed rule.

### 29

28. Comment: The applicability ofsubdivision (2) should be written in terms ofthe actual use of materials or purchase of materials over a 12-month rolling average, rather thanthe actual daily emissions. Possible substitutes forthe proposed applicability threshold are 3 tons ofVOCper rolling 12-month period or 855 gallons ofcleaning solvents per rolling 12-month period. [8] Response: DEPshould revise the applicability for subsection (ii) to use a longer averaging period and to base the applicability on the purchase ofsolvent rather than actual emissions fromindustrial solvent cleaning. Both of these changes will make applicability determinations easier. In addition, the longer averaging period imposes the requirements on sources with emissions that consistently exceed a level where the cost of control is appropriate. See the discussion in response to Comment 13 for additional justification for the recommended change to the applicability. (2) Applicability. Except as provided in subdivision (3) ofthis subsection, the provisions ofthis subsection apply to an owner or operator of any premises with-aetual who purchases for use at the

. . .

_ . r---- -- - premises at least 855 gallons ofcleaning solvents in aggregate per rolling 12-month period. Any owner or operator ofsuch a premises shall : (A) Comply withthe requirements ofthis subsection no later than January 1, 2010 or, for a source commencing operation after January 1, 2010, the date on which the sources commences operation; and (B) Remain subjectto this subsection

Rd-RA cectinn 22a-174- 20 29. Comment: DEPshould include a categorical exemption for all aerospace and reworx facilities, regardless ofsize, or update RCSA section 22a-174-20(ij) to be consistent with the allowable gun cleaning methods in the Aerospace CTGand the Aerospace NESHAP . [2, 3, 6] " The Aerospace CTGand Aerospace NESHAP recognize the following gun cleaning methods as acceptable: 1) cleaning in an enclosed system ; 2) non-atomized cleaning forcing solvent through the gun into a container with the atomizing cap in place butusing no atomized air; 3) disassembled gun cleaning/soaking by hand in a container; and 4) atomized cleaning forcing solvent throughthe gun into a container fitted with a device to capture the emissions. [2, 3] " Coatings used inthe aerospace industry are highly regulated by customers and are designed to withstand extreme conditions. Aerospace coating manufacturers often provide instructions on clean up ofa particular coating fromapplicator equipment. These instructions typically require the applicator to be cleared with the same solvent as contained inthe coating, in order to keep the applicator functioning properly. Solvents that meet the proposed VOCcontent limit of 0 .421b/gal may not effectively clean spray guns used to apply aerospace coatings. [2, 3] " The proposed rule includes the use of an enclosed gun cleaner as an alternative to meeting the solvent VOClimit. Some of UTC's smaller sites use a low vapor pressure VOCsolvent (-4 mm

Hg) to clean their spray guns by disassembly and soaking in a container that is closed when not in use. In addition such extended soaking may be

### 30

required for some of ourmore viscous materials. Emissions are minimal, and this approach to cleaning is acceptable under the Aerospace NESHAP. [2, 3] Response: The exemption proposed in subsection Ejj)(3)(iii) is intended to exempt all aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities, whether or notthe facility is subject to the aerospace NESHAP, fromsubsection (jj), ifspray application equipment cleaning is conducted as provided in the NESHA .P and using cleaning solvents approved in the NESHAP (40CFR63 subpart GG), inclusive ofthe exemptions inthe NESHAP. Given the number of comments submitted, the proposed language ofsubclause (iii) is not understood to provide this exemption and should be replaced with the following language: (iii) ; At any aerospace manufacturing and rework facility, provided that cleaning solvent is used in accordance with the requirements of 40CFR63.744, inclusive ofexemptions, In response to the comment that subsection (jj) should include the cleaning methods offered inthe aerospace NESHAP, the hearing officer notes that the four methods provided in proposed subsection (jj)(4)(A) through (D) are based onthe four methods provided in 40 CFR63.744(c)(1) through (4) . 30 . Comment : DEPshould add a new exemption to subsection (jj) to allow for the use of noncompliant solvent in amounts greater than the 55-gallon exemption. The exemption could take the following form

: (A) The use ofa cleaning solvent that does not comply with subdivision (4)(A) of this subsection may be allowed upon approval by the Commissioner . (B) Any request for approval under this subdivision shall be made in writing to the Commissioner and shall include, at a minimum, the following information: (i) The scope of the activity, (ii) An assessment ofalternative materials and procedures, 

### (iii) Quantification ofthe amount ofVOCthat would be emitted as a result of such activity, and (iv) The dates on which the activity will occur. [6] Response: DEPshould expand the proposed exemptions ofsubsection (jj) to take into account those limited situations in which an owner ofan activity that is not otherwise exempt requires the use of a non-compliant solvent and using a cleaning method other than an enclosed gun cleaner. Two new exemptions should be added to subsection (jj) in accordance with this comment. First, the commenter refers to a "55-gallon exemption," which was not included in the proposed exemptions in subsection (jj), but which is included in proposed subsection (ii) and in several similar regulations including RCSA31

sections 22a-174-44 and 22a-174-20(s) . Such an exemption should be added as new subparagraph (C) ofsubdivision (3), as follows: (C) Using cleaning solvent that exceeds the VOCcontent limitation of subparagraph (B), (C) or (D) ofsubdivision (4) of this subsection where the quantity of cleaning solvent used does not exceed 55 gallons in aggregate per any 12-month rolling period. Any person claiming exemption pursuant to this subparagraph shall record and maintain monthly records sufficient to demonstrate compliance with this exemption. In addition, as the commenter recommends, DEPshould add the ability for an owner to apply for an exemption for situations not otherwise anticipated by the exemptions included in subdivision (3) by adding new subparagraph (D), as follows: The cleaning solvent VOCcontent limitations of subparagraph (B), (C) or (D) of subdivision (4) of this subsection shall not apply, upon request to and approval by the commissioner. Any request for approval shall be made in writing to the commissioner and shall include a description of the noncompliant solvent and its VOCcontent, an explanation ofwhy the noncompliant solvent is necessary, the aggregate amount in gallons or pounds of noncompliant solvent use anticipated in a 12-month period and the frequency of use of the noncompliant solvent. 31 . Comment: "Medical device manufacturing" should be addedto RCSAsection 22a-174- 20(jj)(3)(A), which lists those operations and industries exempt fromthe requirements of subsection (jj) . Medical device manufacturing involves a complex manufacturing process and must meet stringent requirements of the U .S. Food and Drug Administration. Any change to an established process requires expensive and time consumingvalidations and/or toxicity testing, whichwouldbe a competitive disadvantage for Connecticut industry. [4] Response: For the reasons stated in the comment, DEPshould add an exemption to subsection (jj) for medical device manufacturing . The exemption should be added as new subclause (vi) in subsection (jj)(3)(A), as follows: (vi) Associated with medical device manufacturing; and In addition, a definition of "medical device" should be added to subsection (jj)(1), in the appropriate location alphabetically, as follows: "Medical device" means an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, gadget, appliance, implant, in vitro reagent or other similar or related article, including any component, part or accessory, which meets one of the following conditions : (i) Recognized in the official National Formulary or the United States Pharmacopeia or any supplement thereto,

### 32 (ii) Intended for use in the diagnosis ofdisease or other conditions or in the cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease, in persons or animals, or (iii) Intended to affect the structure or function of the body of a person or animal, and which does not achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on such body and which is not dependent upon being metabolized for the achievement of its primary intended purposes; 32. Comment: DEPproposes to implement several options for spray application equipment cleaning. Three ofthe five options require the use ofa "cleaning solvent with an applied VOC content that does not exceed 50 grams per liter." In twoof the options, (subdivisions (4)(B) and (D)), the low-VOCcleaning solvent is used in arelatively closed systemto minimize emissions. DEPshould remove the requirement to use a "cleaning solvent with an applied VOCcontent that does not exceed 50 grams per limit" from subdivisions (4)(B) and (4)(D) for the following reasons: " The reduction in emissions achieved by using a low-VOCsolvent compared with any other solvent is minimal in a closed system . " Alow-VOCcleaning solvent may not be able to clean the spray application equipment adequately in a reasonable time, adding financial burdento the regulated community. " If a new

solvent that meets the VOClimitneeds to be used during cleaning, the introduction of the solvent to an established, validated manufacturing process will require extensive quality testing, a substantial financial burden. [4] Response: DEPshould not remove the VOCcontent standard fromsubdivision (4) as the lack of a standard would degrade the potential air quality benefits of the revision. Although the commenter describes several of the acceptable cleaning methods as "relatively closed," those methods are not in an enclosed gun cleaner and may, with a high VOCcontent solvent, result in significant emissions. EPAfound, in developing the 1994Alternative Control Techniques that preceded the 2006 CTGfor industrial cleaning solvents, that spray gun cleaning accounts for 50% of the total emissions fromcleaning operations. While DEP is not requiringthe use ofenclosed gun cleaners, an enclosed gun cleaner is the recommended approach and may be used with solvent of any VOCcontent. DEPhas not left owners and operators whorequire the use of a VOCcontent solvent to clean coatings or adhesives fromspray guns with no recourse. An owner or operator who does require the use of a high VOCcontent cleaning solvent may do so in association with an enclosed gun cleaner. Furthermore, the expansion ofthe exemptions as discussed in the response to Comments 29, 30 and 31 also takes into accountthe needs ofcertain industries that require the use ofa high VOCcontent solvent, either occasionally or routinely. V . Revisions Recommended by the Hearing Officer In addition to revisions to the proposal recommended based on the comment and response in Section IVofthis report, the Hearing Officer recommends the following minorrevisions:

### 33

(1) Throughout the proposal, DEP uses January 1, 2010 as the initial compliance date. Given the passage of time since the proposal was developed, DEPshould replaceJanuary l, 2010with January l, 2011 to allow regulated source owners additional compliance time after the proposal is effective and to allow DEPsufficient time for stafftraining and regulated community outreach. (2) In each of the revised or new subsections proposed in response to a CTG, namely subsections (p), (q) and (ff) through (jj), DEP proposed to use the terms "air pollution control equipment efficiency," "capture efficiency" and "overall control efficiency." The term"air pollution control equipment efficiency" and the use ofthe term"air pollution control equipment" in the definition of "capture device" make the meaning of the terms difficult to ascertain. DEP's intent would be better expressed by eliminating the term"air pollutioncontrol equipment efficiency," adding the term"control device efficiency" and revising the definitions of "capture efficiency" and "overall control efficiency" to eliminate the phrase "air pollution control equipment." This series of revisions should be made in subsections (p)(1), (q)(1), (ff)(1), (gg)(1), (hh)(1), (ii)(1) and (jj)(1) . Specifically, the changes to the definitions in each ofthe referenced subsections should be as follows:2

"Capture efficiency" means the ratio ofVOCemissions delivered to the ~r ~ ien control device to the total VOCemissions resulting from [ insert name ofregulatedactivity] and related cleaning expressed as a percentage; "Control device efficiency" means the ratio ofVOCemissions recovered or destroyed by the control device to the total VOCemissions that are introduced into the device, expressed as a percentage; "Overall control efficiency" means the product of the capture efficiency and the air control device e

fficiency; As a result of the recommended changes to the definitions, the following changes should be made to each of the referenced subsections, as follows: " Proposed subsection (p)(5)(B) :

Notwithstanding

subdivisions (1)(B) (1)(C) and (2) through (6) ofsubsection (bb) of this section install operate and maintain according to the manufacturer's recommendations ____ 'r' systemair pollution control equipment that reduces uncontrolled VOCemissions to the atmosphere froma co ating unit by an overall control efficiency ofat least 90% ; or " Proposed subsection (q)(5)(B) :

Notwithstanding subdivisions (1)(B) (1)(C) and (2) through (6) ofsubsection (bb) of this section install operate and maintain according to the manufacturer's recommendati ons - 'Y ' systemair pollution control equipment Note that the specific subparagraph designation for each of the terms is not indicated since it varies from subsection to subsection.

### 34 that reduces uncontrolled VOCemissions to the atmosphere froma coating line by an overall control efficiency ofat least 90% ; or Proposed subsection (ff)(4)(B) : (B) Install, operate and maintain in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations, system, a capture and a control device, whieh m°°~° that produce the overall control efficiency identified in Table 20(ff)-l, according to the date of installation of the press being controlled andthe installation date of the airpollution control deviee equipment. " Proposed subsection (ff)(5)(B) : (iv) Documentation ofai efficiency and capture efficiency, ifapplicable, and control device (v) Date and type of maintenance performed on airpollution control or- eapture equipment, if applicable. " Proposed subsection (gg)(4) : (4). . . . .shall operate ^ ^^atfe' a° air pollution control equipmentto: (A) Achieve a 90% overall control efficiency if the eeiAfel device air pollution control equipment is installed prior toJanuary 1, 2011 ; (B) Achieve a95% overall control efficiency if the air pollution control equipment is installed on or after January 1, 2011 ; or (C) Reduce the control device outlet concentration to 20parts per million as hexane on a drybasis if the inlet VOCconcentration is so low that 99°40-er 95-OAthe overall control efficiency specified in subparagraph (A) or (B) of this subdivision cannot may not be achieved. " Proposed subsection (gg)(7)(B) : (iv) Documentation of ui efficiency and capture efficiency, ifapplicable, and control device (v) Date and type of maintenance performed on air pollution control or- eaptwe

. equipment, if applicable. " Proposed subsection (hh)(5)(B) : (B) Install, operate and maintain in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations, system, acapture and a control device, whieh m°°}° that produce. . . " Proposed subsection (hh)(7)(B) : (iv) Documentation ofai efficiency and capture efficiency, ifapplicable, and control device (v) Date and type of maintenance performed on air pollution control or eaptwe equipment, if applicable.35

" Proposed subsection (ii)(4)(B) : (B) Install, operate and maintain in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations, an emissions eei#fel sys air pollution control equipment that reduces uncontrolled VOCemissions to the atmosphere from any solvent cleaning by an overall control efficiency ofat least 85% . " Proposed subsection (ii)(6)(B) : (vi) Documentation of efficiency and capture efficiency, if applicable, and control device (vii) Date and type of maintenance performed on air pollution control ep-e~ equipment, if applicable. " Proposed subsection (jj)(4)(E) : (E) Installing, operating and maintaining control equipment that reduces . . . . " Proposed subsection (jj)(6)(B) : (vii) Documentation of efficiency and capture efficiency, if applicable, and air pollution

control device (viii) Date and type ofmaintenance performed on air pollution control ef-eapture equipment, if applicable. (3) The exemption in subsection (ii)(3)(xi) for medical device manufacturing is inaccurately described as "medical device operations." The exemption should instead be stated as "medical device manufacturing" and a definition of "medical device" should be added to subsection (ii)(1) . The definition should be identical to that in subsection (jj)(1) as set out in the response to Comment 31 . (4) Because the use of materials purchased offers several benefits over actual emissions as the mechanismfor determining applicability, DEPshould replace the 15 pound per day actual emissions threshold proposed for subsections (ff) and (hh) with 855 gallons ofVOC-containing materials purchased in aggregate per 12-month rolling period. Although commenters only recommended this change for subsections (gg) and (ii), the same reasoningjustifies that approach for subsections (ff) and (hh) . The proposed applicability of subsection (ff) should be replaced with the following language: (2) Applicability. The provisions of this subsection apply to the owner or operator of any flexible package printing press whopurchases for the printing operation at least 855 gallons ofcoatings, adhesives, cleaning solvents and solventbased inks in aggregate per any rolling 12-month period. Any owner or operator of a flexible package printing press shall : (A) Comply with the requirements of this subsection no later than January 1, 2011 or, for a source commencing operation after January 1, 2011, the date on which the source commences operation; and

### 36 (B) Remain subject to this subsection. The proposed applicability ofsubsection (hh) should be replaced with the following language: (2) Applicability. Except as provided in subdivision (3) of this subsection, the provisions of this subsection apply to an owner or operator of any large appliance coating unit who purchases for the coating operation at least 855 gallons ofcoatings and cleaning solvents in aggregate per any rolling 12-month period. Any such owner or operator shall : (A) Comply with the requirements of this subsection no later than January 1, 2011 or, for a source commencing operation after January 1, 2011, the date on which the source commences construction; and ) Remain subject to this subsection. (5) The term"non-absorbent container" should be eliminated fromthe defined terms in RCSAsection 22a-174-20(q)(1) because it is assigned an ordinary meaning and, therefore, does not require definition. (6) The VOCcontent limit in subsection (q)(5)(A)(i) is proposed as 0 .40kilograms ofVOC per kilogramofcoating solids applied and is incorrect. The correct limit is 0 .35 kilograms of VOCper kilogramofcoating solids applied, which is the same limit proposed in subsection (q)(4) as a standard ofgeneral applicability. The requirements ofsubsection (q)(5) apply to larger sources and are not intended to be less protective than the requirements ofsubsection (q)(4) . Subsection (q)(5)(i) should be revised, as follows:

For all coatings except pressure sensitive tape and label coatings, use only coatings that result in VOCemissions no greater than A :40 0 .35 kilograms ofVOCper kilogramofcoating solids applied, (7) The definition of "HVLPspray" is not consistent with the part of speech or use of the termin subsections (p) and (hh), and so the defined termand definition should be revised as follows in subsections (p)(1), (p)(4), (hh)(1) and (hh)(4) : "HVLP spray application" means to apply a coating usingahigh-volume low-pressure spray epatifig-application systemthat is designed to operate at air pressures between 0 .1 and 10 pounds per sguare inch gauge measured dynamically at the center of the air cap andthe air horns (8) An exception should be added to subsection (p)(3) as new subparagraph (C) to statethat a person using air pollution control equipment to comply is not required to use one of the specified applicationtechniques: (C) The requirements ofsubdivision (4) shall not apply to a person using air pollution control equipment to comply with subdivision (5) of this subsection.37

(9) Adefinition of "as-applied" should be added to subsection (q)(1) since the termis used in the subsection. The definition should be identical to that ofsubsection (p)(1) . (10) The kilogramequivalent to 15 pounds, which is 6 .8 kilograms, should be addedto the applicability language ofsubsection (q)(2) . (11) The statement in subsection (q)(5)(A), which allows owners of paper, filmand foil coating operations to comply by using only coatings that meet the VOCcontent limits or by using coatings that per a daily coating line average meet the VOCcontent limits, is not clear. Subsection (q)(5)(A) should be replaced, as follows:

soli ds a0ph

- rn VOGem e ubparagEophs (A)(!) and © 

### emission lim i

### ti Use only coatings that individually meet the applicable VOCemission lim it of subparagraph (A)(i) or WOO of this subdivision or use only coatings so that the daily weighted average of the VOCcontent ofall coatings used on a single coating line meets the VOCemission limit of subparagraph (A)(i) of this subdivision: 

### 01 For all coatings except pressure sensitive tape and label coatings, use only coatings that result in VOCemissions no greater than 0 .35 kilograms of VOCper kilogramofcoating solids applied, or ii For pressure sensitive tape and label coatings, use only coatings that result in VOCemissions no greater than 0 .20 kilograms ofVOCper kilogram

of coating solids applied; (12) Subsection (ff)(4) includes similar language to that discussed in recommendation (11) and should also be revised as follows:

. . . use one of the following methods to control VOCemissions fromsuch a press:38 (A) Use only individual inks, coatings and adhesives with an as-applied VOC



### ) content that does not exceed 0 .8 kg VOC/kg ofsolids (0.8 lb VOC/lb of solids) or 0.16 kg VOC/kg ofmaterials (0.161b VOC/lb ofmaterials)

. T,_

_ t -, r Use only inks, coatings and adhesives so that the daily weighted average of the VOCcontent of the inks, coatings and adhesives used in a single printing line does not exceed 0 .8 kg VOC/kg ofsolids (0 .8 lb VOC/lb ofsolids) or 0 .16 kg VOC/kg of materials (0.16 lb VOC/lb of materials) ; or (C) Install, operate and maintain in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations, a capture and a control device that produce the overall control efficiency identified in Table 20(ff)-1, according to the date of installation of the press being controlled and the installation date of the air pollution control equipment. (13) The definition of "flexographic print station" in subsection (ff)(1)(E) is not accurate and should be revised, as follows:

) "Flexographic print station" means a work station on which a flexographic printing operation is conducted. Aflexographic print station includes a flexographic printing plate, whieh' and an image carrier made of rubber or other elastomeric material . The image to be printed is raised above the printing plate; (14) The applicability ofsubsection (ff) should be amendedto exempt a flexible package printing operation subject to subsection (fl) fromthe obligation to comply with subsection (v), as follows: (2) Applicability. (A) The provisions ofthis subsection applyto the owner or operator of any flexible package printing press whopurchases for the printing operation at least 855 gallons ofcoatings, adhesives, cleaning solvents and solventbased inks in aggregate per any rolling 12-month period. Any owner or operator ofa flexible package printing press shall : (i)

) Complywith the requirements ofthis subsection no later than

January 1, 2011 or, for a source commencing operation after January 1, 2011, the date on which the source commences operation, and (ii) Remain subject to this subsection; and Any flexible package printing press operated pursuant to this subsection shall not be subjectto subsection (v) of this section .

### 39

(15) Subsection (hh) should include an additional exception specifying that the owner or operator of a large appliance coating operation complyingvia add-on controls is not required to use the specified application methods ofsubdivision (4) . The exception should be added to subdivision (3), as follows: (3) Exemptions and exceptions. (A) The requirements ofsubdivision (5) ofthis subsection shall not apply to the following: (A) (i) Stencil coating, (13) (ii) Safety-indicating coating, (G) (iii) Solid-filmlubricant, (H) (iv) Electric-insulating and thermal-conducting coating, (£) (v) Touch-up and repair coating, or {F) (vi) Coating applied with a hand-held aerosol can . (B) The requirements of subdivision (4) shall not apply to a person using air pollution control equipment, as specified in subdivision (5)(B), to comply with the requirements of this subsection. VI . Conclusion Based upon the comments submitted by interested parties and addressed in this Hearing Report, I recommend the final proposal, included as Attachment 3 to this report, be submitted by the Commissioner for approval bythe Attorney General andthe Legislative Regulations Review Committee. Based upon the same considerations, I also recommend that upon promulgation portions ofthis proposal be submitted to EPAas a revision to the State Implementation Plan.

ZZ p Date